Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. If you look at poll numbers you will see that the vast majority of people favor stricter gun laws, a woman's right to choose, and better immigration laws. There is a fringe hate fueled minority that will look you in the eye and say that "I don't give a damn if those people die." I believe the vast majority of people do care and want reform. "Moscow Mitch" won't allow legislation to be brought up on the floor because the NRA is a powerful lobby and has bought and paid for the vote.
You didn't actually understand what I said.
Every major group has human life it is indifferent toward, and when pressed, will say, "I don't care about those deaths."
If someone wants you dead, their is little you can do about it, unless they announce it to the world.
It is called, "getting the drop" What will solve this crap? Everyone armed, is a good deterrent.
A shooter never wants to hear, return fire.
MYTH: The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
It’s a phrase we’ve all heard before—on the news or scrolling through Facebook feeds or on forums such as this one. It’s been circulating for at least seven years, ever since NRA's Wayne LaPierre first said the words at a news conference following Sandy Hook.
It appeals to a simplistic (if zero-sum) binary: good versus evil. As in any action movie worth its salt, there will always be a hero waiting to swoop in and save the day, killing the bad guy and getting the acclaim.
Life just isn't that simple folks. Take that tragedy in Dallas Texas about 3 years ago. A trained former military gunman ambushed a massive crowd, aiming for police among a group of protesters. The shooter crossed several blocks, eventually making a last stand in a building on a college campus. His movements made it impossible to determine the precise number of shooters. Meanwhile, at least 20 armed protesters on the ground added to the chaos and confusion.
Five police officers were killed, and nine others were injured, as were two civilians on the scene. In the end, it wasn’t even a gun that brought an end to the violence, but a bomb, aimed by a police robot at the lone gunman.
By the NRA’s standards, the last place a shooter should have succeeded in committing a massacre would be in a heavily armed crowd. However, the roughly 100 police officers present and myriad gun toting civilians were unable to stop the bad guy.
Following the shooting, many prominent Republican leaders who usually respond to mass shootings by wishing there had been more guns on the scene were conspicuously silent. In practice, the promised success of armed opposition to an active shooter once again proved more difficult than some might suppose.
So here we are, after these latest massacres and following shooting after shooting, the NRA peddling the same tired good-guy with a gun myth. Interestingly, NRA revenue rises following each successive mass shooting. In fact, following the Sandy Hook shooting, NRA profits increased by almost $100 million, and membership increased by hundreds of thousands, while firearms sales soared.
Armed police were on the scene in under a minute in the last mass shooting incident, in Dayton Ohio...by some reports within 30 seconds. “Think about that minute,” said Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley. “The shooter was able to kill nine people and injure 26 in less than a minute.”
The gun-permissiveness crowd wants us not to think about that minute. It puts the lie to the gun lobby’s claim that having armed people nearby when a mass killer strikes is all we need to keep us safe.
It is time, well overdue, to lay aside the NRA’s favorite axiom and start to focus on changing gun policy in these United States of America!
Last edited by corpgypsy; 08-09-2019 at 11:36 AM..
Every single person (almost) up in Northern Minnesota owns firearms. Heck when I go up there to land, I can hear gunfire all day long some times on the Iron Range.
Yet they have no problem up there with gun homicides.
So it's obviously something more problematic than "progressives" would have us all believe. Guns clearly are not the problem in America because there are many communities where literally every Tom, D-ck and Harry are armed, and yet these communities have no problems with gun-used crime.
No. An AR-15 (AR is not short for "assault rifle") centerfire is just like a rimfire long gun - one bullet and only one bullet fires when you pull the trigger.
Ignorant Gun Grabbers like to point out that the 'AR' in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle!
No, it does not.
It stands for Armalite Rifle #15 after the company that originally designed it.
Don't be an ******* and kill strangers? As responsible car owners what do we do about drunk driving deaths? As responsible homeowners what do we do about risks of danger on our property? We fix it.
None of this does any to stop other people from doing what they want.
What do you think responsible gun owner needs to do?
MYTH: The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
It’s a phrase we’ve all heard before—on the news or scrolling through Facebook feeds or on forums such as this one. It’s been circulating for at least seven years, ever since NRA's Wayne LaPierre first said the words at a news conference following Sandy Hook.
It appeals to a simplistic (if zero-sum) binary: good versus evil. As in any action movie worth its salt, there will always be a hero waiting to swoop in and save the day, killing the bad guy and getting the acclaim.
Life just isn't that simple folks. Take that tragedy in Dallas Texas about 3 years ago. A trained former military gunman ambushed a massive crowd, aiming for police among a group of protesters. The shooter crossed several blocks, eventually making a last stand in a building on a college campus. His movements made it impossible to determine the precise number of shooters. Meanwhile, at least 20 armed protesters on the ground added to the chaos and confusion.
Five police officers were killed, and nine others were injured, as were two civilians on the scene. In the end, it wasn’t even a gun that brought an end to the violence, but a bomb, aimed by a police robot at the lone gunman.
By the NRA’s standards, the last place a shooter should have succeeded in committing a massacre would be in a heavily armed crowd. However, the roughly 100 police officers present and myriad gun toting civilians were unable to stop the bad guy.
Following the shooting, many prominent Republican leaders who usually respond to mass shootings by wishing there had been more guns on the scene were conspicuously silent. In practice, the promised success of armed opposition to an active shooter once again proved more difficult than some might suppose.
So here we are, after these latest massacres and following shooting after shooting, the NRA peddling the same tired good-guy with a gun myth. Interestingly, NRA revenue rises following each successive mass shooting. In fact, following the Sandy Hook shooting, NRA profits increased by almost $100 million, and membership increased by hundreds of thousands, while firearms sales soared.
Armed police were on the scene in under a minute in the last mass shooting incident, in Dayton Ohio...by some reports within 30 seconds. “Think about that minute,” said Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley. “The shooter was able to kill nine people and injure 26 in less than a minute.”
The gun-permissiveness crowd wants us not to think about that minute. It puts the lie to the gun lobby’s claim that having armed people nearby when a mass killer strikes is all we need to keep us safe.
It is time, well overdue, to lay aside the NRA’s favorite axiom and start to focus on changing gun policy in these United States of America!
Ummm. OK. In the incident you cited it was an explosive device that ended the shooting. Not a firearm no, but still an application of lethal force. In every one of these shootings it wa such an application of lethal force that ended the shooting spree. Either by an armed citizen, an LEO, or by the shooters own hand.
Now, I'm a bit different from the folks you are used to talking to who advocate for armed citizens. I do believe that the requirements for certification to have a CCW should be far better. There are far to many shake n bake courses out there "certifying" CCW applicants. And this allows far to many people to carry who are no where near qualified to do so. That being said this is about the only area I would be willing to budge on in terms of firearms regulations. And I want to limit government involvement in it.
A large portion of CCW "training" courses are and 8 hour stint that usually only goes for 6 and a lunch break. If the trainee manages to put three round out of seven in the paper on a human size target at 7 yards that's good enough. The classroom session part is usually a bull session where the instructor crows about his credentials.
I help instruct a CCW course. Our local competition club sponsors it. The basic course is 3 days. 24 hours. Both the classroom and range segments are detailed and rigorous. In the classroom we go over just what carrying a firearm for self defense entails. The responsibilities, obligations, legal aspects including what to expect following use of lethal force, where you can and cannot carry, how to carry properly keeping a weapon CONCEALED, human reaction to stress and how to handle it, shoot don't shoot decision making, the all important mental aspect of proper reaction in a self defense situation, and a lot more as well. Classroom is a day and a half. Half the course . Take notes and study at home. There will be a test. If a trainee fails the written test they do not advance to the range.
On the range now. Before a student I even admitted to the course both their weapon and their carry holster are inspected. Weapons must be of a proper type, suitable caliber, and in proper working condition. We do not allow cheaply made weapons in 22 LR or 25 ACP that are only good for fishing weights. They must be proper defensive weapons, preferably no smaller than .380 but 9mm and up are preferred.
Holsters must be of good quality and also proper for defensive carry use. No "pocket guns". Then we go to work. Proper weapon presentation ( the infamous draw) this is done dry. Not trying to be to fast is stressed. Being smooth and in control is the key. Once it is determined the students can properly present their firearm we move to live fire. The courses of fire vary from class to class but we used induced stress an each course has the factor of the unexpected in it somewhere.
Being able to keep cool, think on your feet, and remain in total control of the weapon is a requirement and each student is evaluated on this. We time the courses but time doesn't count for much. We are looking for smooth and in control.
Our final course of fire is different. It is all behind a barrier and only the student shooting, an instructor and a safety officer can see what's going on. Students on deck cannot watch the shooter ahead of them. But if they hear gunfire the shooter just failed this stage. It is a don't shoot situation based on an actual incident that happened here. Failing this does not mean a student fails the class but it will be a learning experience. That is the point.
The point of all this is that more people carrying IS a good thing but we need qualified and proficient people. CCW courses should be required to graduate proficient people. People who are going to carry need to know what sort of responsibility they are taking on and be willing to have and maintain the ability to be proficient. People who can think. Shooting properly is a better than 90% mental skill.
And this is the obligation of the class and instructors who graduate a student. Government involvement is just to process applications and grant the permit. It should be able to be assumed the applicant is ready from his course certification. If they are not an act improperly that goes back on the course that graduated them.
Just having more people carrying a weapon I agree is not the answer. We need GOOD people carrying weapons. People that are better than the cops (which is not that hard to do) who can react properly in a defensive situation. This does not mean they will be "heroes" who actually take out a mass shooter. They may not be able to do that but they can cover peoples retreat and stand their ground, and if a shot comes open they can take it and hit their mark.
So that's my two cents, and in simplistic fashion. There is a lot I didn't go into but rest assured it's in my mind.
Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, the leading researcher on the topic for the past 35 years, tells Reason, "There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings." The number of incidents and casualties are simply too small to make such claims and, he stresses, the media coverage of shootings often ends up creating a false sense that gun violence—which is at or near historic lows—is ubiquitous and growing.
So what do we as responsible gun owners do about mass shootings?
Return Fire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
